{"id":35793,"date":"2020-04-21T21:59:56","date_gmt":"2020-04-22T04:59:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pocketwisdominsights.com\/pwicolab\/?p=35793"},"modified":"2020-06-25T12:47:36","modified_gmt":"2020-06-25T19:47:36","slug":"gvrnmnt-pwr-exrcsd","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pocketwisdominsights.com\/pwicolab\/emod-blog\/third-party\/gvrnmnt-pwr-exrcsd\/","title":{"rendered":"Government Power is Exercised"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Opening Insights: Reacting to COVID-19<\/h2>\n

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth.<\/em>
BUDDHA<\/p>\n

The United States faces an event of historical proportions with the outbreak of the coronavirus<\/em> which causes the COVID-19<\/a> disease. As a result of the coronavirus and COVID-19 challenge facing nations across the world a real state of fear has taken hold. <\/p>\n

The following article was published by The Washington Post, \"a major American daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C.\" It was written by Dan Balz, \"Chief correspondent covering national politics, the presidency and Congress.\"<\/p>\n

Informational Insights: Tightening the Grip<\/h2>\n
\n

Americans are experiencing the biggest expansion of government authority in generations as elected leaders take unprecedented action to fight the deadly coronavirus pandemic.<\/p>\n

This story was featured in Drop Me The Link, our one-story election newsletter.\u00a0Sign up to get it in your inbox three times a week.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

The role of government has changed overnight, in ways no one imagined as this election year began. Despite a broad consensus behind this emergency surge in government spending and power, a huge debate over what government does and should do lies ahead.<\/p>\n

That battle will be waged on terms that could be far different from those that existed before the pandemic \u2014 terms that have held sway since President Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington four decades ago determined to put advocates of a vigorous government on the defensive for the first time since the New Deal.<\/p>\n

The pandemic has exposed crippling weaknesses in the federal government and troubling vulnerabilities in society that will be more difficult to ignore when the crisis begins to ease. For the first time, many Americans are looking to government for their very economic survival. In time, that could make them look at government differently.<\/p>\n

The effects of hollowed-out federal agencies, persistent underinvestment in public health, enormous gaps in coverage and disparities in care have been on daily display as the novel coronavirus spread rapidly this winter and spring. So, too, have the effects of an economy whose benefits are distributed unequally, leaving the richest Americans secure while millions upon millions of middle- and lower-class families struggle even in the best of times.<\/p>\n

And these are not the best of times. To hold down the number of deaths from covid-19, the disease the virus causes, government has put the economy in a coma \u2014 a recession by federal fiat. State and local governments have closed schools and shut down bars, restaurants and some other businesses, leaving\u00a0millions of laid-off workers\u00a0<\/a>to rely on an enormous infusion of federal benefits for their financial support.<\/p>\n

Government has intervened in the market in other ways as well, delivering billions in bailouts to airlines and other distressed industries while haltingly commanding\u00a0General Motors\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a03M<\/a>, through the Defense Production Act, to manufacture ventilators and protective masks.<\/p>\n

Government also has changed personal behavior, recommending and in some cases\u00a0ordering people to stay home<\/a>, practice social distancing and wear masks outdoors, in some places\u00a0under threat of fines\u00a0<\/a>or penalties. Coming next is likely to be contact tracing, an effort to track people exposed to the virus that\u00a0could invade the privacy of all Americans<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So far,\u00a0Washington has authorized more than $2.35\u00a0trillion\u00a0<\/a>to prop up suffering workers and industries and supply an overwhelmed health-care system, with another round of spending probably coming soon.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has resurrected and expanded its playbook from the 2008 financial crisis, pumping an estimated $4\u00a0trillion into the economy.<\/p>\n

More spending could be required in the future to patch the holes the pandemic has revealed. The nation also is likely to need higher taxes \u2014 and not just on the wealthiest \u2014 to help repay the gigantic debt Washington is incurring to rescue the economy and workers.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it could be paradigm shifting,\u201d said Janet L. Yellen, former Federal Reserve chair, arguing that this crisis could generate greater public support for more spending on health-care and safety-net programs, which she favors.<\/p>\n

William Galston of the Brookings Institution said he sees this moment as the end of the cycle that began with the 2008 financial crisis and the tea party revolt in the fall of 2009, which triggered populist forces that eventually helped elect President Trump. \u201cSo the movement that began in opposition to a bailout is ending in an administration that finds itself forced to sponsor \u2014 and in many respects urge on \u2014 the largest expansion of government financial activity in our history,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Galston\u2019s reference to the tea party movement is a reminder that anti-government sentiment remains strong among a segment of the population. But government\u2019s response to the financial crisis was to bail out big banks while providing little help for others, policies that infuriated many Americans. Those measures were far different from what Washington is doing now, which so far has garnered widespread public support.<\/p>\n

Champions of limited government are determined to push Washington back to its pre-pandemic boundaries. \u201cGovernment, to me, should be in a supporting role, not a leading role; a watchdog, not a cow to be milked,\u201d said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). \u201cThe goal is to help people get back on their feet but not to make this the new normal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Events of this magnitude, however, often produce significant and lasting changes in the nation\u2019s politics. That is especially likely if economic activity remains weak for a lengthy period of time.<\/p>\n

Already, some conservatives acknowledge the need for both additional spending, which they hope can be narrowly targeted, and higher taxes, one tiny indicator of how things may be shifting. At the same time, recent protests against stay-at-home orders in Michigan and elsewhere \u2014 urged on by Trump \u2014 suggest the threat of a wider backlash against infringements on personal freedom.<\/p>\n

The coming battle over the size and scope of government has not been fully joined, and its shape remains uncertain. The first engagement will come during this fall\u2019s presidential election. Trump\u2019s leadership during the pandemic,\u00a0which has been widely criticized<\/a>, will be front and center in November. But the backdrop now will include fundamental questions about the role Americans want their government to play as the country struggles to repair the damage to lives and livelihoods in the spring of 2020.<\/p>\n

A $6 trillion crisis<\/strong><\/p>\n

Historian Jill Lepore, author of the 2018 book\u00a0\u201cThese Truths: A History of the United States,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0said she is often asked of extraordinary events or actions whether whatever is happening is without precedent. \u201cUsually the answer is, yes, this is precedented,\u201d she said, meaning something like it has happened before. That is not the case now. \u201cThere is no precedent for this,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Breathtaking may be the only word to describe the size and speed of government\u2019s financial response to the pandemic. In the space of a few weeks, Congress passed three bills: an $8\u00a0billion\u00a0emergency measure\u00a0<\/a>to finance vaccine research and local preparedness; the\u00a0Families First Coronavirus Response Act\u00a0<\/a>costing nearly $200\u00a0billion; and the\u00a0Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act,\u00a0<\/a>which will cost more than $2\u00a0trillion.<\/p>\n

Together, the measures equal slightly more than 10\u00a0percent of gross domestic product, economists say. By comparison, the response to the 2008 financial crisis amounted to about 3\u00a0percent of GDP, considered enormous at the time. Add in actions by the Federal Reserve, and the government\u2019s response to the pandemic\u00a0equals about a quarter of the nation\u2019s entire annual economic input<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s like a war, in that it\u2019s this huge, huge thing,\u201d said Jason Furman, who chaired the Council on Economic Advisers (CEA) under President Barack Obama and is now a Harvard University professor. \u201cBut it\u2019s like a recession, in that we\u2019re not raising taxes at the same time to pay for it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office and chief economic policy adviser to John McCain\u2019s 2008 presidential campaign, said the federal response is both ordinary and extraordinary.<\/p>\n

Writing checks for unemployment insurance, for instance, is a traditional response during an economic downturn. But the loans to businesses, he said, especially small businesses \u2014 assuming they are distributed efficiently, which is in question \u2014 are far more innovative.<\/p>\n

The effect on the nation\u2019s balance sheet is sobering. The new legislation will increase federal budget deficits, and in turn the national debt, \u201cto never-before-seen levels both in dollars and as a share of gross domestic product,\u201d according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.<\/p>\n

The committee projects a deficit this fiscal year of $3.8\u00a0trillion and next year of $2.1\u00a0trillion. Accumulated debt \u201cwill exceed the size of the economy by the end of fiscal year 2020 and eclipse the prior record set after World War II by 2023.\u201d Those projections do not include another big infusion of spending under discussion in Congress.<\/p>\n

The debate over the size and scope of government has been at the center of American politics for decades, even as spending and deficits have steadily increased \u2014 what John DiIulio of the University of Pennsylvania described as \u201ca constant process of addition, not subtraction.\u201d Calls for lower taxes and spending restraint, along with populist, anti-government rhetoric, have shaped the debate. Both parties have allowed spending to rise while failing to raise taxes to pay for it.<\/p>\n

The election of Reagan in 1980 marked the arrival of the small-government movement at the center of power in Washington. The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, led by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), brought the anti-government, \u201cleave me alone\u201d coalition to the forefront of American politics. And the tea party movement that emerged after the 2008 financial crisis shaped political debate throughout Obama\u2019s presidency.<\/p>\n

Yet the recent surge in spending has been approved with broad, bipartisan support. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have wrangled over the particulars, but the first three measures were\u00a0approved by overwhelming majorities<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Glenn Hubbard, who chaired the CEA under President George W. Bush and teaches at Columbia University, worked with congressional Republicans to shape the legislative response. He called the actions to date \u201ca perfectly fine use of government.\u201d<\/p>\n

A recovery in doubt<\/strong><\/p>\n

Consensus formed behind the massive intervention for two reasons, said Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and professor at Columbia University.<\/p>\n

First, without action and incentives, everyone is vulnerable to the virus. \u201cIf I am contagious and I go to the store, everybody suffers,\u201d he said. \u201c[Paid] sick leave is not just a compassionate action, it\u2019s an action to try to prevent people from going to work when they\u2019re contagious.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second, he said, this pandemic has many innocent victims. \u201cSo the role of the government in social protection was accepted by almost everybody.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is no consensus, however, about what happens once a recovery begins. Greg Mankiw, like Hubbard, served as chairman of the CEA under George W. Bush and is now a professor at Harvard. If this turns out to be a V-shaped recession \u2014 a steep decline followed by a rapid recovery \u2014 then the government response will prove transitory, he said, and its role will not change dramatically.<\/p>\n

If, however, the recession forces significant numbers of firms to go out of business, and if Americans are reluctant to resume normal patterns of economic activity without a vaccine, then, Mankiw said, government\u2019s larger role probably will last longer and be far less transitory.<\/p>\n

More fiscal stimulus \u2014 government spending \u2014 would be the only viable alternative because the Fed is tapped out, Yellen said. \u201cThe Fed is doing everything it can,\u201d she said. \u201cWe will have gotten to the point where fiscal policy has to play a role, or else we\u2019ll be burdened by chronically high unemployment.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThat social safety net debate will return,\u201d Holtz-Eakin said.<\/p>\n

The current faceoff between Republican and Democratic congressional leaders over the next round of assistance points to a larger argument looming on the horizon, a debate that may be shaped by dueling narratives of how the crisis was handled, according to Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford University\u2019s Hoover Institution and host of the podcast \u201cEconTalk.\u201d<\/p>\n

One narrative could posit that the government\u2019s response was too timid, a failure by Trump and others hostile to government to take earlier and more aggressive action. \u201cThere will be a real push by some segments of the cognoscenti .\u2009.\u2009. to say that we need a better and bigger government,\u201d Roberts said.<\/p>\n

But if the number of deaths falls significantly below early projections of 100,000 to 240,000 and the economic damage proves relatively short-lived, then a counternarrative could take hold, one in which Trump will claim a victory that his supporters will embrace. \u201cThat makes it harder for the other narrative to get a foothold,\u201d Roberts added.<\/p>\n

'Investing in our core'<\/strong><\/p>\n

When he recently stepped down as far-left leader of the British Labour Party after losing the December election to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn said the pandemic had shown that his long-standing prescription for bigger government was correct.<\/p>\n

\u201cI was denounced as somebody that wanted to spend more money than we could possibly afford to right the social wrongs of this country,\u201d he told the BBC. \u201cI didn\u2019t think it would take only three months for me to be proved absolutely right by the amount of money the government is prepared to put in.\u201d<\/p>\n

In this country, as the government has poured huge sums into economic relief, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the two most liberal candidates in the 2020 Democratic nomination contest, have called for even more, including lasting changes in safety-net programs.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur political system has debated the role of government since the founding, but the time for cheap political shots at government is over,\u201d\u00a0Warren wrote\u00a0<\/a>in a recent New York Times op-ed.<\/p>\n

Calls for more spending are not limited to Sanders and Warren or to the left wing of the Democratic Party.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat this emergency has done is .\u2009.\u2009. expose the deep divides in the country, many of the inequities in the country and many of the shortcomings in our systems,\u201d said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) \u201cThe next question will be whether we will muster the political will to use government to address some of these fundamental challenges.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa and agriculture secretary in the Obama administration, said the crisis has highlighted the economic insecurity that troubles many American workers and the chronic health problems that made African Americans disproportionately vulnerable to covid-19.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re paying the price for knocking government, for not investing in government, and not understanding that part of the American experience is out of a sense of community and connection. And we\u2019ve given that up,\u201d Vilsack said. \u201cWe have to have a reckoning, and as a country, we have to begin investing in our core.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lanhee Chen, a professor at Stanford University and domestic policy adviser to Mitt Romney\u2019s 2012 presidential campaign, called Sanders\u2019s use of the crisis to argue for huge increases in social welfare spending irresponsible. \u201cI think that is an intellectually cheap way to justify a set of beliefs and belief structures that would not have led us down a particularly better road,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Chen noted, however, that public expectations may change as a result of the interventions now underway, and that perceptions about what constitutes the right balance between government and market forces could shift.<\/p>\n

For example, he said, should government force U.S. manufacturers to rethink supply chains that depend heavily on China? Or should the companies be left to make those decisions for themselves?<\/p>\n

\u201cI think there is a recalibration going on [among advocates of freer markets] about how to think about the interaction between individual actors and the government and its regulatory authority,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Advocates of bigger government have begun to identify other areas of need, including more money for public health and health-care coverage; paid sick leave and expanded family leave; and assistance for disadvantaged students who lack access to the tools needed for distance learning. Many of these are familiar, long advocated by those on the left.<\/p>\n

Lepore said that isn\u2019t unusual. Crises often result in expansion of government, and the programs enacted often involve long-standing ideas. During the Great Depression, she said, President Franklin D. Roosevelt embraced programs many in the progressive movement had been advocating since the late 19th century.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not like on March 4, 1933, FDR woke up and said, \u2018I have an idea,\u2019\u2009\u201d she said, citing the date of his inauguration. \u201cAs governor of New York, he had done a version of most of these things.\u201d<\/p>\n

The fading consensus<\/strong><\/p>\n

Writing in the American Prospect recently<\/a>, Heather Boushey, president and chief executive of the Center for Equitable Growth, said, \u201cThe need for substantially increased public spending and investment will not diminish once the public-health crisis fades. What will diminish is the broad political consensus that made possible the recently approved $2.2\u00a0trillion burst of federal spending.\u201d<\/p>\n

Added Furman: \u201cI think we have a temporary truce in the small government versus big government battle. And when the truce ends, the battle will be more fierce than it was before.\u201d<\/p>\n

The fading consensus is already visible. Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), who is a former president of the conservative Club for Growth, said he and other Republicans worked to set expiration dates for some of the spending programs aiding those affected by the downturn.<\/p>\n

\u201cI certainly hope that [the pandemic] does not reshape or dramatically expand the role of government in the long term,\u201d he said. \u201cI think this is a necessary step for an absolutely unique set of circumstances. But I think this is a very, very rare moment .\u2009.\u2009. I\u2019m hoping that we return as close as possible to normal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mankiw said many conservatives have embraced the use of government power to address the pandemic, but added, \u201cThe Bernie Sanders wing goes beyond that. To polarize the general population between the rich and everybody else. It\u2019s pitting certain segments of the population against other segments. I don\u2019t see that argument being strengthened by the current set of events.\u201d<\/p>\n

But conservatives recognize the ground may be shifting in ways advantageous to those on the other side of the debate. More spending seems inevitable, particularly for public health and potentially for programs such as paid sick leave or family leave.<\/p>\n

One area where views have shifted is the issue of debt and deficits. Policymakers on the left and right now recognize that the federal government can manage bigger deficits and far more debt than was presumed to be healthy during the all-consuming battles over debt during the Obama administration.<\/p>\n

Toomey is among those whose views have changed. The reason, he said, is the experience of seeing inflation remain in check and interest rates fall to historic lows, even as the debt has grown substantially. \u201cThat experience, along with this new increase in debt causes us to rethink how much debt we can manage,\u201d he said. \u201cObviously there is some limit. .\u2009.\u2009. But the limit is higher than many of us imagined.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conservatives who hope to bring down the debt see another potential obstacle: Trump. The president supports spending on infrastructure, has opposed cuts to entitlement programs and, as president, has shown no real concern about the rising national debt, which stands at $18.5\u00a0trillion. As Barrasso, a deficit hawk, put it: \u201cThe president and I have a different view of debt.\u201d<\/p>\n

Many students of government and the economy see the pandemic response as lacking any kind of ideological frame or underpinnings.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think most of the old views are temporarily frozen or dead,\u201d said Tyler Cowen, a professor at George Mason University. \u201cWe\u2019re seeing a surge in what I call authoritarian centrism. So Congress is passing a lot of bills, spending incredible amounts of money. The Fed doing everything it can. Most representatives, most people are supporting this. These are centrist actions in that sense.\u201d<\/p>\n

Come November and a presidential election between Trump and former vice president Joe Biden, this unity of purpose will have given way to more familiar divisions of a polarized nation. But with the experience of the pandemic still fresh in people\u2019s minds and the threat of new infections still prevalent, the debate over government\u2019s role will take place in a newly charged and perhaps less predictable political environment.<\/p>\n

\u201cMajor pandemic episodes throughout history have one thing in common: They all changed the economic patterns of the world, rejiggered the politics and stimulated rapid change in sociologic patterns,\u201d Michael Leavitt, the former Utah governor who served as health secretary under president George W. Bush, said via email.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe pandemic of 2020,\u201d Leavitt added, \u201cwill be no different.\u201d<\/p>\n

dan.balz@washpost.com<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/graphics\/2020\/politics\/pandemic-government-role\/<\/a><\/a><\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This article originally appeared on April 19, 2020 on THE WASHINGTON POST: <\/em>Government is everywhere now. Where does it go next?<\/a><\/p>\n

This Article was republished on April 19, 2020 by MSN:<\/em> Government is everywhere now. Where does it go next?<\/a><\/p>\n

Possibilities for Consideration: Can Freedom Be Preserved?<\/h2>\n

There's no question that the COVID-19 disease is a dangerous problem, and we should all pitch in to do what we can to end its out-of-control spread, but what happens to us in the aftermath if freedom is destroyed in the process?<\/p>\n

Add Your Insight<\/h2>\n

Take a moment and examine\u2026<\/p>\n